Chandler did take a moment to just talk hoops, and after playing with and against the best players in the world he tapped new (and former?) teammate Dirk Nowitzki as the best player in the NBA.

“I would go with Dirk. It’s funny, I tweeted about it and I’ve been catching the same flack about it. But I feel it’s proven by what he did last year, what he did to the Lakers, what he did to Oklahoma City, what he did in the Finals, throughout the whole playoffs Dirk just became a man possessed. He went to a whole other level offensively. People talk about what he did defensively, but he actually stepped it up better during the playoffs last year and became a better team defender. And my whole thing is if you outscore the guy defending you by 10 to 15 points, then you’re playing pretty good D.”

I find it truly remarkable how some fans can still hold out hope that Bargnani "might" turn his career around. Is 5 years really too short a sample size? Really? Is watching paint dry a fun Sunday afternoon activity for these people with infinite patience?

I can already hear the excuses if Bargnani (to nobody's surprise) continues to struggle in ALL aspects of the game outside scoring:

- "It was only his 1st year under a new coach. Let's see how his 7th season turns out."
- "We didn't have Valanciunas on the roster. He'll be able to cover for Bargnani once he arrives."
- "Opposing defences gameplan around Bargnani, which explains his off numbers. It doesn't mean he's a bad player"
- "Blah, blah, blah"

Imagine Dion Phaneuf scoring 30 goals a season, but finishing with a league worst minus-35. He would be hockey's equivalent to Bargnani.

Stating an OK player is good enough to be potential starter on a playoff team is not saying much in my opinion. Many playoff teams have holes which can be improved upon by bringing in a marginally better player.

Is Amir a finished product? No, in my opinion. I believe there is a good chance his ceiling is higher than what he has shown in 2010-11. Is he good enough to be a starter on a number of playoff teams? Not at this stage of his career in my opinion but I am not certain I will provide the same answer in two years. My guess, and it is just a guess, is that at worst he will be good enough to be the first big off the bench for most playoff team. Very useful player and I see no reason to trade him at this time.

Is Andrea a finished product? No, in my opinion, his stats are nowhere close to constants or incremental progressions/regressions. He has non-standard skills for his position (whatever that is) and that makes it more difficult to project his progression. I think he will play a significantly role for a team who needs his specific skill set for years to come, be it with the Raptors or another team. I would not be so quick in pulling the trigger with him if I was Colangelo because none of the projected 3 (or 4 if one believes the Alabi spin) have yet shown the ability to create their own shot or being good scorers. I am not saying the Raptors and any other team absolutely need a good scoring big man, just that I would be hesitant to do so before it's clearer how the other bigs will project.

One player's only above average skill is scoring, but doesn't do it all that efficiently and tends to lose focus when he doesn't get the ball. He needs to be surrounded by very good defensive players and rebounders to make up for his deficiencies, and even then, you run the risk of being exposed, especially in the playoffs, by teams who will see him as a weak link. And since he is not generally the most focused player, so needs a coach who will ride him, but not too hard. And he's also shown to be less effective when coming off the bench.

The other player is a good all around player and productive on both ends of the court, although he needs to be on a team with good offensive players. He doesn't need the ball to be effective, though, but he moves very well without it, has good hands and is a very efficient scorer when he does get the ball. He also hustles and doesn't need to be coddled or worried about. He is just as effective playing 20 minutes off the bench as he is playing 30 minutes starting.

Should we really consider it a "pro" if Bargnani can't rebound and/or protect the rim (2 qualities that would be required from either the PF or C positions)? He doesn't play either position particularly well.

Fans on here are split on Bargnani, so there's no point getting into an argument about him. I happen to think he can improve his scoring efficiency and with a little bit of a fire lit under his ass, can add a rebound or two to his stats. I also think that if the team defense improves under a decent defensive coach, that his average man-D and poor help-D wouldn't be nearly as magnfied as last year. Bargnani, Calderon and DeRozan were all essentially pilons last season - the constant penetration put way too much pressure on the team D and Bargnani's poor help-D was exploited.

I think he will still become an above average offensive player, especially at the C position. He creates mismatches and often draws out big defenders from the lane, which would be exploited if the Raps had half decent wings and a PG who wasn't playing on wonky legs. Putting Bargnani alongside Val/Ed, who should become above average defenders, playing in a more effective team defense, will take much pressure off Bargnani defensively. I would rather have a PF who can score consistently and efficiently, with average D, than Amir who is good at everything but great at nothing. This kind of thinking is what makes people *hope* that Bargnani and Val/Ed can become the Raptors' version of Dirk & Chandler. I just dont' think Amir will ever be any better than he is now, which is backup PF.

I don't expect you to agree and am not trying to convince anybody. It's all just my opinion, based more on watching every game than worrying about stats in a vacuum.

I meant that Val is a C, Ed & Amir are PF, but Bargnani is the only one who could play either positions, depending which other big is on the court with him. Ed & Amir are undersized to play C (except when both teams are playing small), so Bargnani's positional flexibility is an added pro in his favor.

The fact that Bargnani's a poor defender and rebounder completely negates the fact that he happens to have the size to play center. I mean, who cares if he has the size when he can't do the things necessary for the position to do?

CalgaryRapsFan wrote:

If you look at C/PF as a 3-player rotation, rather than 4 (starter/backup at each position), then there would be plenty of time to spread between Val/Ed/Bargnani. Val is a C, Ed is a PF and Bargnani could spend time at both positions. That's another advantage he has over Amir, IMO, to be the #3 big on the team. He might be a little pricey for a #3 big, but when #1 & #2 are both on rookie-scale contracts and consider that in games when Bargnani is "on" he could likely play the most mintues of the 3 bigs, then I don't think it's too bad at all.

You miss the point, though. Shelling out minutes on paper SOUNDS like a great idea (stats in a vacuum, as you mention below), but who starts? And who plays crunchtime minutes? Bargnani has struggled when asked to come off the bench, and I can't see Davis being happy with that role.

CalgaryRapsFan wrote:

Fans on here are split on Bargnani, so there's no point getting into an argument about him. I happen to think he can improve his scoring efficiency and with a little bit of a fire lit under his ass, can add a rebound or two to his stats. I also think that if the team defense improves under a decent defensive coach, that his average man-D and poor help-D wouldn't be nearly as magnfied as last year. Bargnani, Calderon and DeRozan were all essentially pilons last season - the constant penetration put way too much pressure on the team D and Bargnani's poor help-D was exploited.

I think he will still become an above average offensive player, especially at the C position. He creates mismatches and often draws out big defenders from the lane, which would be exploited if the Raps had half decent wings and a PG who wasn't playing on wonky legs. Putting Bargnani alongside Val/Ed, who should become above average defenders, playing in a more effective team defense, will take much pressure off Bargnani defensively. I would rather have a PF who can score consistently and efficiently, with average D, than Amir who is good at everything but great at nothing. This kind of thinking is what makes people *hope* that Bargnani and Val/Ed can become the Raptors' version of Dirk & Chandler. I just dont' think Amir will ever be any better than he is now, which is backup PF.

I don't expect you to agree and am not trying to convince anybody. It's all just my opinion, based more on watching every game than worrying about stats in a vacuum.

There is a small minority that still defend Bargnani. In fact, there are plenty of people that used to be fans that have given up on him.

And Valanciunas has shown to have many of the skills that Bargnani defenders tout as a reason to keep him. So if Valanciunas fils the role Bargnani apparently does, then why keep him? Especially with his contract and history of not improving on defense and rebounding?

As for Amir, RIGHT NOW he's more productive than Bargnani. And he's 2 years younger. And Amir doesn't NEED this fire lit under his ass like Bargnani apparently does. My question: Why on earth would you keep a guy who needs his ass constantly kicked in order to do what so many other players do naturally?

16.5 ppg for Davis would put him amongst the top 15 Power Forwards (for scoring).

To me, it doesn't sound reasonable - in fact, it's more like Maple Leaf fans jumping on a 8-3-1 record, and arranging the parade already.

It's possible Ed Davis becomes a 20 ppg guy, but that implies he'll be a top 5 PF in the league. That's putting some lofty hopes on players that don't deserve to be put in such a position. This also is predicated on the Starting SF putting up 14 points per game (or thereabouts).

Once these players start putting up bigger numbers, Opponent defenses will focus in better. That will impact efficiency, as well as energy left for the defensive end.
.
As such, I believe you need a Bargnani in the mix. His role may reflect what we hope is as a Contender in 4 - 5 years, where a new contract reflects the 6 man scenario. Or he may get it (in time), and become that PF we'd hope he could be.

Either way, we're not about to be a Contender in the next 2 or 3 years. Possibly a good team, but not one that will have it all. That takes experience and Leadership - and this team is too young at this time. If you look at a championship team like Dallas, most of their key players were over 30 (with Chandler 28 - closer to 29)
.

What is more likely? That Valanciunas, Davis and Amir can average this 58 ppg that they apparently need to do or that Bargnani will, for the first time in his ENTIRE CAREER, show a big improvement on defense and rebounding enough that he won't be a liability?

And in your research, did you discover how many of those teams had starting big men who were below average rebounders and defenders?

So it's OK for you to decide what I think of a player but get really offended when I return the favor?

I really have absolutely no idea WHAT you are talking about.

Hugmenot wrote:

As you did on Kanter. And Bargnano. And Amir Johnson. You're the expert on any subject you decide you're an expert.

I thank you for it because it is people who voiced their expertise loud and clear which allowed me to make a great living fixing problems companies encountered while following their highly respected opinions.

Do you mean Bargnani? Because I've never thought much of Bargnani. As for my "expertise", I've never claimed to be one. It seems to me that you're trying to take this discussion onto a personal level. No thanks.

Hugmenot wrote:

Neither were true centers as they spent considerable time playing power forward, Pau Gasol more so than Jermaine O'Neal.

Jermaine O'Neal was drafted as a center, but because of his lack of bulk, questioned whether he would be able to play that position right away. Gasol played center for the Grizzlies.

It seems to me that you're reaching a little, here. Both of them were/are 7 footers who have played mostly center. What difference does it make whether they were "considered" a true center? And is there really that much difference? Is Duncan a center or PF?

I haven't posted in a long while, but it's funny how nothing has changed. You bring up Amir Johnson, eventually the conversation swings toward Bargnani. It can't be helped since they're both part of the bigs rotation, it's just kind of funny to see people getting worked up about the same thing over and over. Anyway, to me this isn't the time to be discussing this topic at all. In my opinion there's too much value and insight to be gained from Davis, Bargs and Johnson each playing at least one more season for the Raps before any trades are made.

While I have very little doubt personally that Bargnani will never develop into the kind of frontcourt player that I'd personally want to see on the Raptors, that isn't to say his value won't increase with a season under Dwayne Casey. First off, remember that value in the NBA is by and large determined by scoring production. That view may be changing as advanced statistical analysis continues ascending to prominence but it certainly still holds true in terms of contracts and we can assume to some degree it's still true with NBA GMs. From that standpoint, Bargs' value is likely to increase since scoring is his greatest asset and it should increase (at least in efficiency if not volume) with another season of refinement. Secondly, even if Bargs himself doesn't show much improvement in terms of team defence and rebounding, his perceived value may benefit from the Raptors becoming a better team defensively overall. Obviously this is by no means a given, but it bears mentioning. Will any such gains outweigh the extra million in salary (or two if this season ends up lost)? We can't know, but I think that unless you can get a solid top-10 draft pick or similar prospect for him, it's worth waiting to see.

More importantly, because none of these three bigs project to being (or are) the kind of two way player that deserves alpha or beta status on a contending team, which to keep may end up coming down to either fit alongside said alpha and beta, or simply which can be afforded alongside the contracts of alpha and beta. In other words, which player the Raps end up keeping might come down not to which is the better player, but which player they can AFFORD to keep alongside whoever ends up comprising their core. Purely as a hypothetical, let's say that this year the Raps draft Harrison Barnes, who ends up being an alpha at the 3, and DeRozan and Valanciunas end up being a solid beta and gamma. If Ed Davis turns into a kind of Joakim Noah type at the 4/5 and the Raps are already paying DeRozan big money due to an extension with contracts for Val and Barnes looming, the Raps may have to opt to trade both Davis and Bargnani, then re-sign Johnson to a cheaper deal.

So as fun as it is to argue about which pieces will form a better fit on the court, the reality is that in a post-lockout NBA finances are very likely to dictate who among the Bargs / Davis / Johnson trio stays, and their respective values need to be further evaluated with regard to fit alongside at least one genuine franchise player. The good news is that the Raps have all three essentially locked up until 2015, so there will a lot more time to continue this debate until that franchise player arrives.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is saying that Bargnani's trade value will continue to go up. To me, his value peaked in the summer of 2010, and will continue to go down. Players trade value are either based on potential or performance (or a mixture of the two). Bargnani's biggest trade value has always been his potential. His perceived ceiling is what has always been attractive about him. The reason is because his performance simply has never been very good, especially when now connected with his salary.

In the summer of 2010, there was still a question of what his potential could be because you could use the excuse (as many did) that he simply has never been given the chance. Last year he did and although he scored well, his overall season was a disappointment. And after 5 years in the league, the excuses are pretty much running out. I don't think anyone believes he's going to be an All-Star, anymore, so you're not going to give up nearly as much for him when you might believe that. And at 26, he's running out of time to look at his potential.

And although he's a good scorer, his obvious liabilities now make his performance value questionable with the salary he's making. I mean, do you want to be paying a big man $12 million (especially with the new CBA) when all he can do is score? Especially one that is not an elite scorer and needs to be protected defensively? Basically a bigger version of Jamaal Crawford?

Unfortunately, the longer you keep Bargnani the more his value will go down and the more difficult it will be to trade him. All those that want to keep him to "see if Casey can make him improve" don't seem to realize how big (and how bad) a gamble that is.

Unfortunately, the longer you keep Bargnani the more his value will go down and the more difficult it will be to trade him. All those that want to keep him to "see if Casey can make him improve" don't seem to realize how big (and how bad) a gamble that is.

Not true. Lots of us just don't agree with your opionion and/or your assesment of Bargnani. He's obviously a lightning rod on RR, so no point continually rehashing the arguments for and against.

I think this is a case of me just not stating my case adequately. When I said at least another year, I was thinking this year plus potentially into next, which more than likely means a trade deadline deal rather than an offseason deal, since that's when you're most likely to get a prospect or a pick. But I didn't really express that, so I see where you're coming from. I still tend to assume the players will come to their senses, though with all this new decertification talk that seems less and less likely.

From the Tim W. reply:

I said that it COULD go up, and that you'd have to weight that against the increased salary. It's a gamble, but I think you've got your Raps fan hat on here and not your NBA GM hat. NBA GMs continue to see potential in players that NBA fans loooong ago gave up on, and I doubt that'll change any time soon. Fact is, he still hasn't ever been paired with a quality defensive big man and I refuse to believe there aren't NBA GMs intrigued with the possibility of giving it a shot, especially if they need to shake things up to keep their jobs (ie about 1/3 active GMs in the league). These people are risk takers on a level that you and I are not. Don't get me wrong, were I a GM I'd never roll the dice on the guy, but you can't tell me there aren't GMs in the league who wouldn't, especially if his scoring numbers increase or his efficiency tightens up and the Raps perform well defensively around him. There are simply too many bad GMs out there for me to agree with you, sadly.

As for the salary issue, one of two things make it more palatable than you think: either percentage rollbacks across all salaries, or max contracts capped significantly lower (or both) mean that his contract could look more like something appropriate for a 3rd option on offence. Remember, NBA salaries are tied principally to scoring production, logical or not.

hahaha believe me Lark, ive tried.
Youre barking up on the wrong tree here, trust me.
Read the Everything Bargnani thread, if you want to get to know me and Tim W., hehehe.

I said that it COULD go up, and that you'd have to weight that against the increased salary. It's a gamble, but I think you've got your Raps fan hat on here and not your NBA GM hat. NBA GMs continue to see potential in players that NBA fans loooong ago gave up on, and I doubt that'll change any time soon. Fact is, he still hasn't ever been paired with a quality defensive big man and I refuse to believe there aren't NBA GMs intrigued with the possibility of giving it a shot, especially if they need to shake things up to keep their jobs (ie about 1/3 active GMs in the league). These people are risk takers on a level that you and I are not. Don't get me wrong, were I a GM I'd never roll the dice on the guy, but you can't tell me there aren't GMs in the league who wouldn't, especially if his scoring numbers increase or his efficiency tightens up and the Raps perform well defensively around him. There are simply too many bad GMs out there for me to agree with you, sadly.

As for the salary issue, one of two things make it more palatable than you think: either percentage rollbacks across all salaries, or max contracts capped significantly lower (or both) mean that his contract could look more like something appropriate for a 3rd option on offence. Remember, NBA salaries are tied principally to scoring production, logical or not.

I've got my realist hat on. The fact is that the most likely scenario is that Bargnani's trade value will continue to decline. Could some GMs still continue to grasp at straws? Sure, but fewer and fewer the older Bargnani gets. He just turned 26 and has been in the league 5 years. Next year he'll be 27 and it will be 6 years. It becomes harder and harder to believe he's going to be anything except what he is, even for gamblers. That means fewer and fewer takers and a decline of his trade value. I mean, it's certainly not going to go UP. And there's logic dictates it's not going to stay the same as he gets older.

NBA salaries are tied to how valuable a player is perceived or is perceived will be. A big man doesn't need to score to get a 7 figure salary. Ask Joakim Noah. And ask teams how much they value Corey Maggette with his salary? He's one of the better scorer in the NBA, but his salary (which is less than Bargnani's) is considered bad).

Bargnani will probably always have a PLACE in the NBA because of his scoring, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be considered valuable.

I've got my realist hat on. The fact is that the most likely scenario is that Bargnani's trade value will continue to decline. Could some GMs still continue to grasp at straws? Sure, but fewer and fewer the older Bargnani gets. He just turned 26 and has been in the league 5 years. Next year he'll be 27 and it will be 6 years. It becomes harder and harder to believe he's going to be anything except what he is, even for gamblers. That means fewer and fewer takers and a decline of his trade value. I mean, it's certainly not going to go UP. And there's logic dictates it's not going to stay the same as he gets older.

Here's where our opinions differ. You seem to assume two things that I disagree with:

1) that all teams in the league are striving to win a championship rather than simply to fill seats and turn a profit (or simply to MAKE the playoffs, rather than to build a team to advance deep into them), and will therefore value defence and rebounding over offensive ability.
2) that GMs are indeed intelligent people who are good at their jobs.

Number 2 is really the main point of contention, and I think you've forgotten just how awful the decisions some GMs make are when they're backed into a corner or decide they need to shake things up. Some recent examples off the top of my head:

1. Cleveland traded for Antawn Jamison and Mo Williams in order to chase a championship.
2. Boston gave away Kendrick Perkins for Jeff Green because they felt his offense and ability to guard wings would trump Perkins' interior D.
3. The Orlando Magic's recent moves involving Hedo and company.
4. Phoenix's moves not only with the Magic, but also acquiring Shaq.
5. Sacramento's deal trading down to get John Salmons and then trading away Omri Caspi.

And that's before we get into overpaying for big men in contract negotiations, which I would argue is a good indication not only of how overvalued serviceable bigs are in the NBA, but how often NBA GMs are fooled or tempted by a small sample size of overachievement. I fully agree with you that Bargnani only does one thing well and that the potential his trade value once hinged on is quickly being extinguished. But if this is so, then his trade value is all the more tied to the quality of his play in the short term, not only as a showcase of ability but also as a rekindling of interest in said potential. All it might take to raise Barg's value is a month or two of Casey lighting a fire under his ass before the trade deadline or of carefree play at the end of another season in the tank to convince some hapless GM trying to save his job that Bargs could be the offensive spark his team needs.

Value isn't necessarily a long term thing built up over time, nor is it solely a matter of perceived future potential. Just like in the free market, the price is set by what the buyer is willing to pay. And I'd argue there's plenty of evidence to suggest that NBA GMs are not the most rational of consumers, especially when it comes to big men.

Here's where our opinions differ. You seem to assume two things that I disagree with:

1) that all teams in the league are striving to win a championship rather than simply to fill seats and turn a profit (or simply to MAKE the playoffs, rather than to build a team to advance deep into them), and will therefore value defence and rebounding over offensive ability.
2) that GMs are indeed intelligent people who are good at their jobs.

Number 2 is really the main point of contention, and I think you've forgotten just how awful the decisions some GMs make are when they're backed into a corner or decide they need to shake things up. Some recent examples off the top of my head:

1. Cleveland traded for Antawn Jamison and Mo Williams in order to chase a championship.
2. Boston gave away Kendrick Perkins for Jeff Green because they felt his offense and ability to guard wings would trump Perkins' interior D.
3. The Orlando Magic's recent moves involving Hedo and company.
4. Phoenix's moves not only with the Magic, but also acquiring Shaq.
5. Sacramento's deal trading down to get John Salmons and then trading away Omri Caspi.

And that's before we get into overpaying for big men in contract negotiations, which I would argue is a good indication not only of how overvalued serviceable bigs are in the NBA, but how often NBA GMs are fooled or tempted by a small sample size of overachievement. I fully agree with you that Bargnani only does one thing well and that the potential his trade value once hinged on is quickly being extinguished. But if this is so, then his trade value is all the more tied to the quality of his play in the short term, not only as a showcase of ability but also as a rekindling of interest in said potential. All it might take to raise Barg's value is a month or two of Casey lighting a fire under his ass before the trade deadline or of carefree play at the end of another season in the tank to convince some hapless GM trying to save his job that Bargs could be the offensive spark his team needs.

Value isn't necessarily a long term thing built up over time, nor is it solely a matter of perceived future potential. Just like in the free market, the price is set by what the buyer is willing to pay. And I'd argue there's plenty of evidence to suggest that NBA GMs are not the most rational of consumers, especially when it comes to big men.

Oh, believe me, I don't think every GM in the league is trying to win a Championship. But a guy like Bargnani doesn't exactly fill seats. And I think banking on a GM making a stupid move isn't exactly the best management technique.

And if Bargnani's value is hinged to his quality of play, then the Raptors really are in trouble if they keep him. I don't see him ever getting the same amount of shots per game and as much freedom on offense as he did last season. First of all, you know DeRozan is going to get more shots, which probably means less for Bargnani. Secondly, if Casey really is going to hold players accountable, then that means fewer minutes for Bargnani, who has never exactly earned the minutes he's been given since he was drafted.

There just seems to be far, far too many reasons to trade him now than to hang on to him.

Oh, believe me, I don't think every GM in the league is trying to win a Championship. But a guy like Bargnani doesn't exactly fill seats.

20ppg scorers that space the floor for speedy guards to penetrate don't fill seats? I disagree, as do the legion of Bargs fans and apologists that linger among Raptors supporters. Casual fans greatly outnumber the diehards for any franchise.

And I think banking on a GM making a stupid move isn't exactly the best management technique.

That's just twisting my point to suit yours. I'm suggesting that you can always find a taker for what I maintain is a commodity that will continue to have value. It's not waiting for a GM to make a dumb move, it's finding one that has a perceived hole or need to fill, then offering to fill it when the time is right. And again, I maintain that a big that draws the opposing team's paint presence out to the 3 point line will always have value. My point about GMs being bad at their jobs was to illustrate that they often reach for solutions when under pressure.

And if Bargnani's value is hinged to his quality of play, then the Raptors really are in trouble if they keep him. I don't see him ever getting the same amount of shots per game and as much freedom on offense as he did last season. First of all, you know DeRozan is going to get more shots, which probably means less for Bargnani. Secondly, if Casey really is going to hold players accountable, then that means fewer minutes for Bargnani, who has never exactly earned the minutes he's been given since he was drafted.

There just seems to be far, far too many reasons to trade him now than to hang on to him.

Then who's going to take the shots? Unless DeRozan ups his shots by 10 per game or more, there will still be plenty for Bargs.

As for Casey giving Bargs fewer minutes, it might happen. But I'm arguing that Casey might light a fire under his ass and make him more tradeable. If that happens, why would he get less minutes?

Anyway, this is pointless, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. Difference in philosophy, leaving it at that.

Somehow all this should once again be in the Bargnani thread. But you know what Lark? I hope you're right.

With all this extra time off I really really really really really hope Andrea comes back with a whole new attitude not only towards his own game, but for the better of the franchise as well. I never liked them drafting him in the first place, and I've still never warmed up to him in the slightest. Sure he can score, but as has been referenced around here countless times, he's not very efficient. I'm just hoping he somehow got word that this team is his for the taking, and that his given talents could easily outweigh those of pretty much any other player on our team considering the position he plays.(DeMar still has a ways to go along with Ed) Having said that, why am I to think he's going to magically turn it on, this being his sixth NBA season?

As for the OP, we need defense on this team going forward. Amir has shown he'll do it, we know Ed will definitely get much better than he already is, and big Val coming over next season could give us an excellent looking young front court for years to come. It's almost a guarantee we'll have a top 5-10 draft pick next season and with plenty of SF/PF's(some being combos) looking to come out next year(barring a new 20+ ruling) we could conceivably get a possible scorer in the mix to compliment DeRozan.

I guess the question would be, what would you rather go forward with as far as your three bigs are concerened. Or can the team afford to have four?

1. Bargs, Ed, Val
2. Ed, Amir, Val
3. Ed, Amir, Val, and Bargs

I'm going with #2. I think Bargs could fetch a decent draft choice or possible PG.